| Re: [technology-pmc] Nexus project |
Konstantin Komissarchik schrieb: > Could you elaborate? Why would a project such as E4 have much larger > startup overhead than a tiny project? As far as I can tell, all of the > startup tasks are largely the same regardless of project size. A build > system that builds two dozen plugins is not all that different from one > that builds two plugins. There might be marginally more overhead for a > large project, but it certainly doesn’t scale with project size. I don't think it's just marginally more. It would consider at least initial committers (especially new committers which don't have foundation records and need paperwork) and initial code contribution two aspects. However, I'm not sure if those count into project setup or IP process. I would think the first. > I agree that every successful project requires an active community, but > community and finding an appropriate location is not the same thing. > Let’s take a real example to ground this discussion. As I mentioned in > one of my other e-mails, there is talks in progress for WTP and DTP to > collaborate on two separate pieces of shared infrastructure. These > projects can incubate at the Technology Project, but then what? These > projects would be consumed by two large projects at Eclipse and backed > by very large communities, yet it is not obvious where these projects > can live after graduation. Hmm... so why not just get the ball rolling and start the projects now. Would this leave enough time for DTP and WTP to develop and adopt the project for Galileo? It seems that the discussion for a permanent home of these projects needs a bit more time. Maybe the picture becomes clearer once the projects launched successfully and are included in a release. Maybe it is Tool, maybe Runtime or maybe something new (Nexus?). After all, we have the flatten namespace now and that makes it a lot easier to move projects into a different top level project once that is proven to be a good option. I feel a bit unsure. One the one hand, there is overhead in creating new projects. People have to create a proposal and creation review slides, webmasters have to create resources (newsgroups & co), then the project provisioning request plus paperwork and so on. Reducing bits of these items may make sense for micro-projects. But making it easier for new micro-projects by providing them a home as sub-sub-projects doesn't seem the right solution. Your idea about the "Register New Project Wizard" sounds like a better option to make it easier for proposing/creating a new project. Also, I do feel that there is some overlap with the Technology project. -Gunnar -- Gunnar Wagenknecht gunnar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://wagenknecht.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature